Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!cs.fau.edu!longc
From: longc@cs.fau.edu (Courtney Long)
Newsgroups: comp.ivideodisc
Subject: Re: newsgroup covering DVI?
Message-ID: <1990Nov24.150414.8230@cs.fau.edu>
Date: 24 Nov 90 15:04:14 GMT
References: <755@bohra.cpg.oz> <7324@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> <1990Nov21.160838.890@rick.doc.ca>
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Lines: 55

In article <1990Nov21.160838.890@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes:
>In article <7324@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU
>(Ittai Hershman) writes:
>
>>> The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased.  I agree
>>> comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a
>>> working title for the group. 
>>
>>The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup
>>with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as
>>needed.  Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way
>>as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value).
>>
>>There already is a rec.video -- I think comp.video will end up getting
>>a lot of misdirected posts about video in general.  Besides, what
>>about other multimedia technologies besides full-motion video?  
>
>We have been struggling with this same problem here as an area of
>research is emerging, and management wants to know what to call it.
>
>One of the terms we have been using is "new media", which has its
>problems but seems to do the job.  "New media" literally is media that
>is new.  In practice it can be multi-media where a single media has
>been dominant in the past (e.g., graphics, sound, video in the computer
>field), or it can be interactivity where one-way communication was the
>past mode of operation (e.g., interactive video in the television
>field).  
>
>What we are describing here is seen differently depending on what
>perspective you are coming from (e.g., computers or television).  Thus,
>finding a label for it will be difficult.  What about "comp.new-media"?
>
>
   I think what is most often omitted in the definition of multimedia is
its fundamental objective which is to COMMUNICATE and to INFLUENCE.  Tra-
ditional multimedia audiences are "owned" by the author of the presentaion
as the auditorium is darkened and all stimulus to the viewer is controlled
completely (except for a talking neighbor).

   Referring to computer hardware and software in terms of multimedia is 
like referring to a symphony conductor as the music itself.  Perhaps
a category such as "comp.multimedia.technology" or a setup such as:

  multimedia.technology
  multimedia.styles
  multimedia.interactive
would be more descriptive, as well as allowing a wider range of
contributors.
>
>
>-- 
>Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA
>               andrew@calvin.doc.CA    andrew@doccrc.BITNET
>        HDTV:  higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen,
>            "sit-com" reruns.  What's wrong with this picture?